_The Real Mitt RomneyBill Fortenberry

___
In my previous articles on the topic of voting, I
have established that Christians should not vote for the lesser of two evils but
rather for the candidate that is most pleasing to God. In this article, I would like to be much more
direct and demonstrate why I believe that Christians should not vote for Mitt
Romney in particular. To do this, I
would like to present six statements made by Mr. Romney within the past few years
that should cause every Christian to seriously reconsider any decision to
support him for the Presidency.Statement 1:“I’m not going to
reduce the taxes on the wealthy at all.”[1]
Mr. Romney made this statement on September 23, 2012 in
response to a question from an ABC News reporter, and he has repeated it on
several other occasions. Each time that
Mr. Romney has provided this answer, he has done so to refute claims that he wants
to return to a trickle-down economic policy.
He has been adamant that he will not end the practice of redistribution
of wealth through higher taxes on wealthy Americans. In fact, Mr. Romney actually stated in an
interview with Fox31 of Denver that he would do even more than is currently
being done to make sure that the wealthy pay what President Obama refers to as
“their fair share.”[2] In that interview, Mr. Romney said:

“What we’re going to do is bring down the
rates for everybody, and at the same time we’re going to limit deductions and
credits and so forth for people at the high end. Very high income people are
going to have the deductions and credits come down so we can pay for bringing
down the rates.”
And when he was asked to explain how that would work, he
said:
“As an option you
could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use
your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others — your
healthcare deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000
bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number.”
According to this statement, Mr. Romney’s plan is to
lower the amount of taxes paid by poor and middle class Americans and place a
heavier tax burden on the wealthy in order to pay for all of the services that
the poor and middle class receive. The
last time that I checked, this kind of wealth redistribution is exactly what so
many Christians have condemned President Obama for implementing. Those who have puffed up Mr. Romney as their
savior from President Obama’s evil socialism are in for a sore disappointment
if he is elected as our next President.
In addition to being a plan for blatant redistribution,
Mr. Romney’s plan also represents a threat to Christian organizations through
his proposed cap on charitable deductions.
Currently, individuals can deduct as much as fifty percent of their
adjusted gross income if that amount is given to a church or charitable
organization. This means that a
businessman with an adjusted gross income of $300,000 can claim as much as
$150,000 in deductions on his taxes as long as he gives an equivalent amount to
a church or a charity. This system
encourages wealthy individuals to donate money to charities which are much
better equipped to take care of the poor than the government is, and thereby
everyone benefits. The wealthy benefit
from receiving a generous tax break; the charities benefit from having their
bills paid; the poor benefit from having their needs met, and society benefits
from the lifting of the burdens of the poor.
Mr. Romney’s plan would end all of this.
Our businessman could still give $150,000 to churches and charities if
he so desired, but he would only be able to claim $17,000 of that as a
deduction on his tax return. Thus, his
tax burden would be increased by the fact that he would have to pay taxes on an
additional $133,000 of income. The most
likely outcome of this plan would be an end to the majority of large charitable
donations.Statement 2:“There are a number
of things that I like in health care reform.”
One of the cornerstones of Mr. Romney’s bid for the
Presidency has been his promise to eliminate Obamacare, but in a September 9,
2012, interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney publicly admitted that
he wanted to keep parts of Obamacare in place.
He went on to list three specific examples, but he gave no indication
that his preference is limited to just those three. Here is the exact statement from Mr. Romney:

“I say we're gonna
replace Obamacare, and I'm replacing it with my own plan ... I'm not getting
rid of all of health care reform, of course.
There are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm
gonna put in place. One is to make sure
that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows
for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age
they might like. I also want individuals
to be able to buy insurance, health insurance on their own as opposed to only
being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.” [3]
When I listened to this interview, the first thing that
stood out to me was Mr. Romney’s statement that he would replace Obamacare with
his own plan. Now, there are many
Christians who have supported Mr. Romney in spite of his implementation of socialized
healthcare in Massachusetts solely because of a belief that he will allow each
state to come up with their own healthcare solutions. But is that really what Mr. Romney has in
mind? In the first Presidential debate,
Mr. Romney did say that “the best course for health care is to … craft a plan
at the state level that fits the needs of the state,”[4]
and many people have latched onto this and similar statements without realizing
that Mr. Romney immediately followed that statement with, “And then let's focus
on getting the costs down for people, rather than raising it with the $2,500
additional premium.” The only way that a
President Romney could abide by both of these statements would be to allow the
states to present their plans but then reserve the final determination of
healthcare decisions to the federal government.
This would allow him to keep everything that he likes from Obamacare
while still giving the illusion of freedom and states’ rights.Statement 3:“It's by no means a
branch of Islam.”
Mr. Romney provided this statement in response to a
question that he received on June 2, 2009.
He had recently given a speech on national security before the Heritage
Foundation, and he was asked why he mentioned jihad but never once mentioned
Islam. Here is the full text of his
answer:“I didn't refer to
Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three
major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and
that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward.
Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in
Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise
families and have a bright future.“There is, however,
a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I
use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse
of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It
is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no
means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way
do I suggest it is a part of Islam.” [5]
If this is what Mr. Romney really believes about Islam
and jihad, then he is even more naïve than President Obama, for even our most
Muslim friendly President was not so ignorant of the teachings of Islam as to
deny that jihad was one of that religion’s core doctrines. Here is President Obama’s answer to a similar
question about jihad:“Well, the phrase
jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different
interpretations. But I will say that,
first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions. And more than a billion people who practice
Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as
ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great
religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify
violence towards innocent people that is never justified.“And so I think one
of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these
distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all
sorts -- whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any
other religion, or you don't practice a religion -- that we can all treat each
other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal
principles that Gandhi referred to -- that those are what we’re living up to,
as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.”[6]
Obviously, President Obama’s answer was still somewhat of
a denial of the true nature of jihad within the Muslim religion, and many
Christians were quick to point that out at the time. But now, many of those same Christians are
throwing their full support behind a man who views our enemies with an even
more radical denial of the true motivation behind their hatred. This is an extremely dangerous view that will
likely cause Mr. Romney to continue the same policy of appeasement that has
been implemented over the past four years.
Mr. Romney’s view of jihad is such a unique departure
from the truth that I immediately suspected the teachings of the Mormon Church
as the real source of his opinion, and when I pursued this suspicion, I discovered
that the eleventh annual Mormon Studies Conference at Utah Valley University
was entitled: “Mormonism and Islam: Commonality and Cooperation Between
Abrahamic Faiths.”[7] The website for this event includes a page of
selected readings which contain a great deal of information about the Mormon
view of Islam. I discovered, for
example, that George Q. Cannon, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, a
member of the Mormon Church’s First Presidency and a counselor to Brigham Young
and three successive Mormon Presidents, wrote the following statement about
Islam:“I believe myself
that Mahomet, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and
stigmatize with a great many epithets, was a man raised up by the Almighty and
inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his
land and in the nations surrounding. He
attacked idolatry and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but
one God. He taught that idea to his
people and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish practices
into which they had fallen.”[8]
Another Mormon leader, Elder B. H. Roberts wrote:“We look upon the
teachings of Mahomet, a mixture of good and of evil, but with more good in
them, perhaps, than men are generally inclined to admit. The faith of Mahomet has done much toward
redeeming a portion of our Father's children from darkness.”[9]
Elder Roberts also voiced his agreement with Edward
Gibbon’s statement that:“The Koran is a
glorious testimony to the unity of God ... the liberality of Mahomet allowed to
his predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and the chain of
inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the promulgation of the
Koran.”[10]
This appears to be the view of Islam that Mr. Romney has
accepted. Under this view, the claim
that jihad is a part of Islam would be identical to the claim that jihad was
instituted by God. Mr. Romney cannot
accept this second claim as true, and therefore, in order to abide by the teachings
of his church in regards to Islam, he has no choice but to deny any correlation
between the Muslim religion and jihad.
Thus Mr. Romney’s statement on jihad gives us two reasons
to be concerned. First, we should be
concerned about his unrealistic view of those who are attacking our nation and
her allies. Even more concerning than
this, however, is Mr. Romney’s willingness to deny an obvious truth in order to
adhere to the teachings of the Mormon church.
Statement 4:“Kick the ball down
the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve
it.”
This comment from Mr. Romney was made during a private
fundraiser in which he presented his foreign policy ideas concerning
Israel. I have heard many Christians
claim that Mr. Romney is a good choice for President because he supports Israel
and will guarantee that we continue to receive God’s blessings as a
result. However, that idea is not
consistent with the statement that Mr. Romney made at his fundraiser. When he was asked about a resolution to the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said:

“I look at the Palestinians not wanting
to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and
elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just
no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the
best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you
recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that
in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we
sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that
ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”[11]
This lackadaisical attitude
toward Israel probably stems directly from Mr. Romney's Mormon theology which
rejects the idea that the current nation of Israel is the recipient of the
promises of God. Mormon theology teaches that the true regathering of Israel
prophesied in the Old Testament will not take place until after the descendants
of Israel are grafted into the Mormon church. The current nation of Israel is
thus seen as an imposter seeking to claim promises to which it has no
legitimate right.
According to the article “The
Gathering of Israel in the Book of Mormon: A Consistent Pattern” by Robert Millet of Brigham Young University, “The people of Israel
will be gathered again to the degree that they return to Christ and become
formally associated with the Saints of God. That is, people are gathered first
spiritually and second temporally, first to the Lord and his church and then to
the lands of their inheritance or to the congregations of the Saints.”[12]
According to Mormon President Spencer Kimball, "Now, the
gathering of Israel consists of joining the true church and their coming to a
knowledge of the true God. . . . Any person, therefore, who has accepted the
restored gospel, and who now seeks to worship the Lord in his own tongue and
with the Saints in the nations where he lives, has complied with the law of the
gathering of Israel and is heir to all of the blessings promised the saints in
these last days."[13]
President Ezra Benson wrote,“The Book of Mormon
is the instrument that God has designed to 'sweep the earth as with a flood, to
gather out His elect unto the New Jerusalem.'”[14]
And Elder McConkie said,“The process of
gathering is one in which the scattered remnants of Jacob—those of all
tribes—believe the Book of Mormon, accept the restored gospel, and come to the
latter-day Zion.”[15]
From these statements of Mormon doctrine, we can see that
Mr. Romney’s view of Israel is likely to be similar to that of President
Obama. It is doubtful that he sees
Israel as being different from any other nation, and consequently, he likely
views our relationship with her as being on the same level as our relationships
with all of our other allies. This
explains why he suggested that we should adopt the same policy toward the
Israeli Palestinian conflict that we currently have towards the contention
between China and Taiwan. Mr. Romney’s
Mormon view of Israel should give the Christian voter serious grounds for
concern.Statement 5:“Moving in that
direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”
This was Mr. Romney’s answer to the question of whether
he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In a December 9, 2011, interview with the Des Moines Register, Mr. Romney was
asked "How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?" Here is his response:“That’s already
occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. I was not
comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, due to the
complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but
those wars are winding down, and moving in that direction at this stage no
longer presents that problem.”[16]
In giving this answer, Mr. Romney relied on a very
interesting choice of words. He did not
just admit that he approved of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He also admitted his understanding that this
repeal is just a step in a particular direction, towards a particular goal, and
he admitted to his approval of a move in that direction. The goal that he referred to in this answer
is that of permitting homosexual couples to have rights that are equal to those
of heterosexual couples.
Mr. Romney voiced direct approval of that goal in a May
10, 2012, interview with Neil Cavuto.
Mr. Cavuto asked Mr. Romney about his thoughts on homosexual marriage,
and this is what he said in response:“From the beginning
of my political career, I've made it clear that I think that marriage should be
a relationship between a man and a woman, and I know other people have
differing views, but that's my view ... My preference would be to have a
national standard that would define marriage as a relationship between a man
and a woman. That would then allow
states to determine what rights would be provided for people of the same gender
that wanted to have a relationship.
There could be domestic partnership benefits, for instance, where one
state might decide to provide hospital visitation rights. Another state might decide to provide that as
well as benefits of other kinds. States
could have their own decisions with regards to domestic partnership rights, but
my preference would be to have a national standard for marriage and then
marriage being redefined as being between a man and a woman.”[17]
Once again, Mr. Romney was very particular in his choice
of words. He started out with a
statement that most Christians would approve of: “Marriage should be a
relationship between a man and a woman.”
Immediately after making this statement, however, Mr. Romney proceeded
to present a policy of allowing each state to grant homosexual couples whatever
rights they wanted. His only caveat is
that he doesn’t want homosexual unions to be called marriages. They can have all of the rights and
recognition of marriages; he just doesn’t want them to be called
marriages.
Mr. Cavuto pressed Mr. Romney for more information, and
he obliged him with this response:“We, as a society
take action which we believe strengthens the nation. I happen to believe that the best setting for
raising a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in
the home. I know there are many
circumstances where that's not possible through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to
adopt children. That's fine. But my preference is that we encourage the
marriage of a man and a woman, and that we continue to define marriage as a
relationship between a man and a woman ... If two people of the same gender
want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to
adopt a child, in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt
children. In my view that's something
which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a
departure from the real meaning of that word.”[18]
There are several statements in this response that should
be troubling to Christians. The first,
of course, is Mr. Romney’s admission that he does not believe homosexuality to
be wrong. He simply thinks that defining
the term “marriage” as a relationship between a man and a woman is a path which
society believes will “strengthen the nation.”
Most Christians, however, oppose homosexual marriage because they
believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong.
Christian voters should also note that Mr. Romney contradicted himself
twice in this response. His stated
reason for opposing homosexual marriage was that, “The best setting for raising
a child is where there's the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home.” Then, just two sentences later, he says that
he is just fine with allowing homosexual couples to adopt children; and at the
end of his statement, he went even further by saying that these couples have a
right to adopt children. Not only does
Mr. Romney’s claim that homosexual couples have a right to adopt contradict his
own reason for opposing homosexual marriage, but it also contradicts the
Republican Party Platform which condemns “the State blacklisting of religious
groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.”[19] Mr. Romney’s position on homosexuality is out
of alignment with Christian values, with the Republican platform and even with
itself, but that was not the most disturbing revelation of his interview with
Mr. Cavuto.
Not only did Mr. Romney say that he is fine with allowing
homosexual couples to have all the rights of heterosexual couples, deny that
homosexuality is morally wrong and approve of adoption by homosexual couples;
but he concluded his comments on this topic with this gem of a statement:“This is an issue
which you can't really convince someone about.
It's something which you either believe one way or the other. It's very much like the issue of life, and we
come down on different sides of this issue after giving it careful thought and
consideration. I respect the right of
the President to reach the conclusion he has, and I presume he respects my right
to hold to the position that I've had from the beginning of this topic being
raised.”[20]
To claim, as Mr. Romney does, that “you can’t really
convince someone about” the issue of homosexuality is the same thing as saying
that neither side is ultimately right or wrong on this issue. They just have different beliefs about it,
and they should be willing to acknowledge and respect each other’s
beliefs. This places both positions in
regards to homosexual marriage on an equal plane and denies the moral
superiority of either of them. Such a
statement is troubling enough in its own right, but it is made even more
troubling by Mr. Romney’s casual admission that he applies this same philosophy
of moral ambivalence to the issue of life. Statement 6:“That’s not
something that I would precipitate.”
This was the answer that Mr. Romney gave when he was
asked on September 5, 2011, if he would encourage Congress to take action pursuant
to the Fourteenth Amendment in order to protect unborn children. The specific portion of the Fourteenth
Amendment that Mr. Romney was asked about states, “nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”[21]
and this particular question was prefaced with a brief history lesson
explaining to him that the Constitution specifically granted Congress the
authority to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of this amendment. Here is Mr. Romney’s complete response:“Let me tell you
what my orientation would be, which is: I would like to appoint to the Supreme
Court Justices who believe in following the Constitution as opposed to
legislating from the bench. I would like
to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility for determining
laws relating to abortion as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court, from
the bench, tell America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course. Now, is there a Constitutional path to have
the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court,
and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or
put in place our own views on abortion?
That would create, obviously, a Constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might
occur? I think it's reasonable that
something of that nature might happen someday.
That's not something I would precipitate.”[22]
There are several very important factors to Mr. Romney’s
answer that I would like to bring to your attention. First and foremost, it is important for every
Christian to notice that his answer to the question was a definite, No. Mr. Romney was asked specifically if he would
encourage Congress to pass legislation that would end abortion in a
Constitutional manner; he acknowledged that such legislation is possible, and
then he said that he would not do anything to encourage Congress in that
direction. This answer stands in direct
and intentional opposition to the Republican Party Platform that Mr. Romney is
supposed to be advancing as the Republican nominee. The platform states that the members of the
Republican Party “endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth
Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.”[23] This is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that
he will not do.
In addition to considering what Mr. Romney has said that
he will not do, let’s consider what he said that he would do if elected President. Mr. Romney’s proposal for ending abortion is
a two-pronged approach. First, he claims
that he will nominate justices who will not tell the states how to handle this
issue, and second, he claims that the responsibility for crafting abortion laws
should be returned to the states. Unfortunately,
this two pronged approach is self defeating.
Mr. Romney claims that he will accomplish the first prong of this plan
by nominating justices who follow the Constitution rather than legislating from
the bench, but then he claims that he wants those justices to give the states a
power which is denied to them by the Constitution. He cannot do both. Either he can appoint justices who will
follow the Constitution, or he can appoint justices who will give the states
powers that have been denied to them by the Constitution. Mr. Romney’s plan sounds like a winning
strategy, but he knows full well that his suggestion will never work.
Now, this is a somewhat complicated point of legality
that probably has many of you scratching your heads, so let me take a moment to
explain it in more detail. The Tenth
Amendment of the Constitution states that, “The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[24] Many people have interpreted this to mean
that since the Constitution never mentions the word “abortion,” the federal
government has no authority to rule on this issue and should relinquish all
decisions on abortion laws to the states.
However, this interpretation ignores the phrase “nor prohibited by it to
the States.” This phrase may seem
insignificant to the issue of abortion until we notice that the Fourteenth
Amendment includes the denial of a certain power to the states. Section 1 of that amendment declares that “No
State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”[25] The states are therefore denied the power to
deprive any person of the right to life without due process. This means that there is a Constitutional
injunction against Mr. Romney’s plan of allowing states to decide for
themselves whether or not unborn children should be deprived of the right to
life. The Fourteenth Amendment declares
the right to life to be a federal issue, and responsibility for that right
cannot be returned to the states without a new Constitutional amendment that
repeals the Fourteenth Amendment.
Having looked at what Mr. Romney will not do to end
abortion and having seen that he cannot do what he claims that he will do,
let’s consider the justification that he provided for his decision. In the midst of rejecting the plan put forth
by the Republican Party platform, Mr. Romney made a very interesting statement. He said, “That would create, obviously, a
Constitutional crisis.” Now, it is
important to notice that he did not say that the plan suggested by the platform
would violate the Constitution but rather that it would create a crisis in
regards to the Constitution. It is Mr.
Romney’s plan that violates the Constitution, but what is this crisis that he
is referring to? There is only one
possible crisis having to do with guaranteeing Fourteenth Amendment rights to
unborn children and that is the question over whether or not these children are
actually persons in the meaning of the amendment. This, however, is not really a crisis at all,
and Mr. Romney admits as much in another interview on the topic of abortion.
In a CBS interview that aired on August 27, 2012, Mr.
Romney was asked directly if he agreed with the Republican platform on the
issue of abortion. He provided the
following statement as his response:“No, my position
has been clear throughout this campaign.
I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and
the health and life of the mother. But
recognize, this is a decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political
issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the
courts.”[26]
Setting aside for the moment the fact that this statement
from Mr. Romney completely contradicts his previous claim that the issue of
abortion should not be settled by the Supreme Court, let’s consider what Mr. Romney
has said here. He claimed that the issue
of abortion has already been settled by the courts. This is correct. The Supreme Court has already issued several
rulings which explain exactly how to legitimately end abortion in America.
In the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun
wrote, “If this suggestion of personhood is established … the fetus’ right to
life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”[27] This statement from Roe itself is the
foundation for the plan to end abortion by passing legislation to guarantee
Fourteenth Amendment protection for unborn children. The Supreme Court has already stated that
this would be sufficient for ending all abortion throughout America. Additionally, the Court has also already
defined the term “person” in a manner that includes unborn children. In the case United States v. Palmer, Justice
Marshall wrote that, “The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to
comprehend every human being.”[28] Since the unborn child is just as much a
human being as anyone else, he must be included in the phrase “any person” as
mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thus, it is clear that the courts have already ruled that the unborn
child is a person within the meaning of the Constitution and that his right to
life is thereby guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The only thing missing is the passage of
legislation by Congress which establishes these court decisions as law and
empowers the executive branch to enforce them.
The passage of such legislation is exactly what is called for in the
Republican platform, and it is exactly what Mr. Romney has said that he would
not precipitate.
In addition to his rejection of the Republican platform’s
plan for ending abortion, Mr. Romney has also expressed his opinion that
abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest and if necessary to
preserve the life and health of the mother.
I have written in other articles about the moral problems with these
exceptions, and for sake of time, I will not repeat those arguments here. Instead, I would like to point out that Mr.
Romney’s insistence on exceptions to abortion laws is in fact a denial of the
right to life for every unborn child.
Justice Blackmun gave consideration to these exceptions in the opinion
of the Court in Roe v. Wade. He wrote:

“When Texas urges that a fetus is
entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma.
Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite
broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art.
1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose
of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who
is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's
condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be
out of line with the Amendment's command?”[29]
What Justice Blackmun said was that it is illogical to
claim that the unborn child has a right to life if that life can legally be
extinguished without convicting the child of any crime. In other words, if a child can legally be
killed just because his father was a rapist, then that child does not have a
right to life. If a child can legally be
killed just because his existence causes his mother to have poor health or to
have an increased chance of dying, then that child does not have a right to
life. Mr. Romney’s insistence that
abortion be legal for these reasons demonstrates that he does not believe that
unborn children have a right to life. He
may have a personal preference for those children to live, but he does not
recognize them as having an unalienable, God given right to life.
We have now seen that if Mr. Romney is elected, he plans
to use the tax code to enact a wealth redistribution program that will
effectively eliminate all large charitable donations, that he plans to retain
major portions of the socialized medicine plan that was implemented under
President Obama, that he has a dangerously flawed view of Islam, that he does
not recognize the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God, that he
approves of granting broad rights to homosexuals including the right to adopt
children, and that he opposes ending abortion in America. We have heard each of these positions voiced
by Mr. Romney himself in statements made within the past few years, and we have
analyzed the logical implications of those statements. All that remains is for us to decide what to
do with the information that we have thus gained. I, for one, have decided that, because of
these statements as well as many others which we do not have time to cover, I
cannot support Mr. Romney in his bid for the Presidency. This decision led me to delve into the
Scriptures in an attempt to discover how God would have me to vote in the
upcoming election. I have written about
my discoveries in the articles listed below, and I trust that you will take the
time to read through them as you also search for God's will during this
election season.